Author: blass uri
Date: 15:27:26 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 17:36:42, fca wrote: >The reference is: http://www.rebel.nl/rebel10a.htm#ANTI-GM > >First may I say I am excited about anti-GM, and very positive about the four >follow-up examples given of its operation. It looks like a real advance! I >will certainly buy R10, but that is not so strange as I bought R8 and R9 (and >many other programs) too... > >But the original / basal example troubles me a lot: I have told Ed of this, but >as the example stays on the site I must consider that I may have missed >something. > >In the example, the move is 1. Rxe6 (selected quickly by anti-GM). If 1. Rxe6 >is _not_ played, IMO the position is -= . Black has a pawn, but White has some >compensation. Probable outcome: draw. > >Now it is not difficult IMO to show that now 1... fxe6 wins for Black. There >are some mates to avoid, but otherwise _natural_ play by Black seems to result >in a comfortable win. Not hard to find the winning play (I did). But it is >likely that a GM sees more dangers than I. > >Now what I have already written does not in itself mean that anti-GM has >selected a bad move, for if a GM etc. would not select 1... fxe6 (say time was >quite limited, and GM got scared) then anti-GM would have worked! > >I believe Amir's opinion (please excuse if I've been misadvised) was that "they" >may not select 1... fxe6 in such circumstances (short time). > >I disagree. I think there are no sensible alternatives to 1... fxe6, so the >sacrifice must be accepted. Here is some manual analysis (interesting to see if >programs agree) to support my view. The reason I did the analysis by hand is >simply that I do not have a cc here: but I suppose it is relevant because we are >looking at what a human Black would play. (A computer black obvioulsy grabs the >Rook, and wins). It is not truth The programs I have do not grab the rook if I give them 3 minutes. Rxe6 is a good anti computer move. Uri > >1. Rx6 0-0 2. Bh6 exf6 3. Nxe6 forking Q & R leaves White at least += - but >there may well be something _even_ better for White (as per Alekhine, the >makings of a combination are here) > >1. Rxe6 0-0 2. Bh6 Re8? (if the Rook-capture fear still persists) 3. Bxd7 fxe6 >(3... Qxd7 4. Rxg6+ 1-0 ) 4. Qxe6+ Bf8 (4... Rg8 5. Nxe6 +- ) and after the >(big) simplification White stays a pawn up, maybe with a better position +- > >1. Rxe6 Rxc1+?! 2. Rxc1 exf6 (best, why now if not earlier? 2...Nxf4? 3. Rxe7+ >+- ) Nxe6 Qb8 Nxc7+ +- as the knight is poisoned, and a King escape to f-land >will leave White well ahead in material > >So... what is left? > >1. Rxe6 Rc7 but surely not? How boring! At best, Black has lost all >of his advantage (I think White is *tactically* winning here, but the problem is >too hard for me!). Would a GM actually choose ..Rc7 ? White's threat is still >in place... he has not removed anything. Pins... soon. more pins, Rook doubling >on e-, etc. Would a human GM care to have Black here? > >Please refute, comment, elucidate, show what else Black could play instead of >1...exf6, or whatever! Anyone please? > >In the absence of refutation etc. I would otherwise assume the example shows >anti-GM unnecessarily making a move which is not hard to refute. Repl > >Kind regards > >fca > >PS: Of course, the website may have the second purpose of over-relaxing Anand! >:-)
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.